1. Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff-respondent filed the suit to evict the defendant from the plaint schedule building alleging that he is only a licensee. Defendant took the stand that Ext.Al evidences a lease and not a licence. Courts below held otherwise.

2. Defendant contends that even assuming that he is only a licensee the construction of a structure of permanent character in the property makes the licence irrevocable under S.60(b) of the Easement Act (for short, the Act). Both the Courts below relying on the commission report held that the construction is of a permanent character. Recitals in Ext.Al reveal that the defendant had obtained the plot on rent and that he had constructed the building thereon. The learned Sub-Judge held that the protection under S.60(b) of the Act will not be available to the defendant as he is bound by the terms in Ext.Al to remove the structure after the period stipulated in the agreement. As the Courts below have held that the defendant is only a licensee, the only surviving question for determination is as to whether he can invoke S.60(b) and claim irrevocability of the licence.

3. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that